UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7006

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
KAREEM TOMLIN,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees,
District Judge. (CR-92-238-V; CA-01-150-3-V)

Submitted:

October 20, 2005

Decided:

October 28, 2005

Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kareem Tomlin, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:
Kareem Tomlin, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the
district courts order denying relief on his motion, filed under
Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in which Tomlin
challenged his 1993 conviction.

An appeal may not be taken from

the district courts order unless a circuit justice or judge issues

a certificate of appealability.

28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1) (2000).

certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by

a district court absent a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right.

28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner

satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists

would

find

both

constitutional

that

claims

the

district

is

debatable

courts
and

assessment

that

any

of

his

dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong.

See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d
676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).

We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Tomlin has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeal.
Additionally, we construe Tomlins notice of appeal and
informal brief on appeal as an application to file a second or
successive 2255 motion. See United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d
200, 208 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 124 S. Ct. 496 (2003).

- 2 -

In order

to obtain authorization to file a successive 2255 motion, a

prisoner must assert claims based on either: (1) a new rule of
constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by the
Supreme

Court

to

cases

on

collateral

review;

or

(2)

newly

discovered evidence sufficient to establish that no reasonable fact

finder

would

have

found

the

2244(b)(3)(C), 2255 (2000).

either of these conditions.

movant

guilty.

28

U.S.C.

Tomlins claim does not satisfy

Therefore, we decline to authorize

Tomlin to file a successive 2255 motion.

We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

- 3 -